Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

California Asians upset... New UC affirmative action program favors whites over asians

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
aaaaaa5a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:39 AM
Original message
California Asians upset... New UC affirmative action program favors whites over asians

A new University of California admissions policy, adopted to increase campus diversity, could actually increase the number of white students on campuses while driving down the Asian population.

Now angry Asian-American community leaders and educators are attacking the policy as ill-conceived, poorly publicized and discriminatory.

"It's affirmative action for whites," said UC-Berkeley professor Ling-chi Wang. "I'm really outraged "... and profoundly disappointed with the institution."

----SNIP--------

Although Asians account for only 12 percent of the state's population, they now represent 37 percent of UC admissions the single largest ethnic group. At UC-Berkeley, 46 percent of the freshman class is Asian. There are dormitories with Asian themes and spicy bowls of pho are served up in the Bear's Lair cafeteria.

Under the new policy, according to UC's own estimate, the proportion of Asian admissions would drop as much as 7 percent, while admissions of whites could rise by up to 10 percent.


----SNIP------

In this newest overhaul of eligibility requirements, UC has eliminated SAT subject tests which Asians tend to do well on.

an analysis of the change predicts that the number of Asians admitted to UC could decrease because Asians tend to excel on the "subject tests," which are no longer part of the application.

The number of admitted whites could increase, because more weight will be given to the "reasoning SAT," which favors American natives.

African-Americans and Latinos could benefit slightly from the expanded class-ranking criteria because top students from troubled schools such as San Jose's Lick High School could be UC-eligible.


Full article here...

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12014954?nclic...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'm touching it with a big bag of
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. i see nothing wrong with this, diversity is good
and it's giving more weight to "reasoning SAT" which is what could increase white students. that's different than just accepting students because they are white.

and it will probably help whites from low income homes who are at a disadvantage .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why not just use numbers for students, & their GPAs?
That would screen out and "preferences".. We need to reward achievement and hard work..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Because an A from one school is no where near an A from another
The standardized tests are supposed to help address that disparity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. not totally surprising. White affirmative action opponents always made the claim
that Asian students were hurt by AA as much as more than white students. Now, the gaijin are throwing the Asians under the bus because they're no longer needed for the "wedge". Shows that AA opponents never really gave a damn about Asian students at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. The new system was designed by UC admission, not by "White affirmative action opponents"
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:09 AM by ProgressiveProfessor
Basically UC is still trying to get around Prop 209.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Oh. Never mind then.
Still, Prop 209 was an ugly thing and it should be gotten around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's long past time
that our government got out of the skin color business entirely. A lot of people fought and died that it should be so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Not gonna happen...
Anyone who thinks affirmative action is racist is deemed... well.. we all know how they are named.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
8. Our son is half-Asian, half-white. When he was applying to colleges (a sophomore now), we figured
it was better to list him as "white" (since multi-racial usually isn't a category). Being considered as "Asian" is no help at all in getting into a good college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Most schools are taking some from of mixed these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. This is a mess CA anti- affirmative action proponents created
and no thanks to Ward Connerly and his minions.

My recollection is Proposition 209, and other anti-affirmative action measures passed in Washington, and Michigan, so that race could not be used as a factor in academic admissions and contracting.championed by Ward Connerly, was based on a "meritocracy" platform, that admission was based on standardized test scores, and grade point averages (GPA). That race could not be used as a factor in public college admissions or government contracting.

Recall this was fueled by past anti-affirmative action legislation where whites who were rejected from admission to certain schools - for example Bakke, because some non-white person with lower test scores/GPA was admitted instead of him. Similarly with Grutter vs. Bollinger, a similar case in Michigan citing that race could not be a factor in college admissions. Never mind in these cases no one targeted the legacy applicants and Good Ol Boy/Girl applicants with less than stellar grades but made admission.

Therefore, by using those strict rules of meritocracy in California, looks like a flaw was exposed in the process! Did the anti-AA crowd realize some (non-white) cultures value education more than others, and these cultures saw the opportunity in a meritocracy?

Methinks someone needs to send a cartload of Peggy McIntosh's white privilege knapsacks down to the anti-affirmative action proponents in California, and make sure Ward Connerly gets one too.

I see this as a classic example, of be careful what you wish (or vote) for!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. This is not a defeat of meritocracy but the latest round of affirmative action like tinkering by UC
The UC system blatantly refused to follow 209 and has been trying to do some form of affirmative action without actually using race to get around it. They have been working at it for some time and this is just the latest go around on that. Asians have been considered over represented for years at UC, and the system has been trying to balance against them for some time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Agree UC has been fighting Prop 209
though would California had been in this current predicament, had it not been for Prop 209?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Not sure how big a predicament it is in the big scheme of things
There is a real dearth of women and minorities in the tech fields nationwide. I consider that more of an issue than the balance on a particular campus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. Standardized tests aren't necessarily "color blind."
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 12:07 PM by lolly
The problem with standardized tests--especially non-subject tests like the "reasoning" portion of the SAT, is that they are almost inevitably biased. It is basically an IQ-type test (the original SAT was closely related with IQ testing) and reflects the version of "intelligence" favored by the creators of the test.

For example, if I were to create an "intelligence" test, it would probably favor the types of questions I would do well on. Of course, they do study cognitive development, ed psych, etc, but those fields have conflicting visions themselves. I would most likely, again, chose the versions of intelligence that coincide with my own.

Subject tests are probably, if anything, much less subjective, and a more accurate indicator of high school work and possibly college preparedness. Although some are kind of strange, even regionally biased, subjects like Chemistry or Calculus are probably pretty standard and objective. Downplaying the subject tests, then, is likely to favor the cultural/intellectual values of whoever writes the "reasoning" tests.

ON edit--just read 40feet's post--yes, I agree. Anti AA people made much hay out of criticizing African-American and Hispanic cultures for their presumed anti-academic nature, but when it turns out that Asian Americans have a more academically oriented culture than whites, all of a sudden they change the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aaaaaa5a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Good Post!


I wonder if any whites now view themselves as inferior to asians. Because after all, based on the rules whites created years ago, if the asian kids are scoring higher on school tests, they must automatically be superior... right? (sarcasm)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. hahahaaha!!
Whatever it takes to give white folks degrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. "Asians at UC schools" was a hot topic for debate in the '90s.
They weren't an underrepresented group so didn't get AA points upon application; of course, prop 209 squashed that, but most campuses struggled hard to make sure that affirmative action survived under some other name.

The mantra was that the student body had to "look like" the state's population.

Of course, many Asians were up in arms then, and not just Chinese/Japanese/Koreans. One argument was that SE Asians were Asians but not the "model minority" Asians--break down the Asian numbers and some groups were still underrepresented. In other words, if you needed to alter certain terms of the debate to make sure you benefit, you did so.

Some Chinese/Japanese Asians argued that they still made for increased "diversity"; of course, when they were close to being a plurality on some campuses "diversity" had to just mean "non-white" and a 100% Asian campus would still be "diverse". Some argued on other grounds--that the set of all college-educated Americans was still mostly white so graduating a mostly Asian class would still count as "diversity". Eh. Again, alter the terms of the debate to make sure you benefit.

Whites, of course, made the argument that many Asian-Americans make now: Use test and grade scores.

The bottom line was always not Filipinos or Pacific Islanders, whites or Chinese-Americans, but blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans. Fight as you might, getting their numbers up, esp. for the "flagship" campuses (UCLA, Berkeley, perhaps San Diego, at least in their minds), was a bear. You pick the terms to make the minority enrollment look as bad as possible, for this argument. Prop 209 didn't much alter overall Latino, black, Native American enrollment in UC schools because it just meant instead of getting into Berkeley or UCLA they went to Irvine or Riverside" ... Not a problem, focus on the plummetting UCLA and Berkeley numbers.

Everything done to tweak how they admitted students at UCLA and UC-wide was aimed at increasing the cohorts for those three groups. Income level might net more low-income whites, but it was done to target blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans. Geography, top x % of high schools, life histories, record of overcoming adversity ... whatever the metric and outcome, the goal was the same. Of course, there was the dirty secret--that they focused on admits and acceptances, not graduates. If you looked at the two cohorts, merit and AA admits, you *needed* to just look at admits and acceptances. The merit admits had about the same graduation rate and time-to-degree numbers as Chinese/Japanese Asians and whites. The AA-related drop-out rates, for all the additional services available to them, still were much higher.

Given that and the secular increase in Asian student enrollment it was inevitable that eventually tacit AA efforts would further negatively affect Asian enrollment and start helping whites. Similarly, eventually sex-based affirmative action will wind up helping men if trends hold (it should already for the three targeted groups since women make up large majorities of admits for those groups). If the goal is a student body that looks like the state's population, nobody should have a goal with that. If it's to address historical wrongs, then there's a different set of distinctions to be made because the current ones mask rather than expose a student's family history.

The entire debate makes me want to chuckle, for some perverse reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Aren't some of the "Asians" also "American natives"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I think the other way around but yes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. .
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NancyBotwin Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
22. too many asians.
As an asian myself and growing up in California, the UCs have WAY TOO MANY ASIANS. UCLA and UCI are up there. I am totally for less asians and more diversity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
26. .
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 05th 2019, 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC